Fleming v. Commissioner

1966 T.C. Memo. 251, 25 T.C.M. 1284, 1966 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 33
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedNovember 14, 1966
DocketDocket No. 445-64.
StatusUnpublished

This text of 1966 T.C. Memo. 251 (Fleming v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fleming v. Commissioner, 1966 T.C. Memo. 251, 25 T.C.M. 1284, 1966 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 33 (tax 1966).

Opinion

F. Devere Fleming v. Commissioner.
Fleming v. Commissioner
Docket No. 445-64.
United States Tax Court
T.C. Memo 1966-251; 1966 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 33; 25 T.C.M. (CCH) 1284; T.C.M. (RIA) 66251;
November 14, 1966
*34 Edgar W. Pugh, Penobscot Bldg., Detroit, Mich., for the petitioner. Charles H. Powers, for the respondent.

MULRONEY

Memorandum Findings of Fact and Opinion

MULRONEY, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioner's income tax as follows:

YearDeficiency
1956$3,330.46
19575,432.52
19583,649.93
19594,881.12
1960499.15
19615,379.44

The issues are (1) whether certain gains realized by petitioner resulted from the sale of an option or from the sale of real estate; (2) whether petitioner reported such gains in the proper taxable year; (3) whether petitioner realized long-term capital gains in the transfer of his interest in certain real estate to a corporation, and (4) whether the gains realized or income received by petitioner in connection with the transfer of his real estate interest to the corporation were reported by him in the proper taxable year.

Findings of Fact

Some of the facts were stipulated and they are so found.

Petitioner F. Devere Fleming is a resident of Livonia, Michigan. He filed his Federal income tax returns for the years 1956 through 1961 with the district director of internal revenue, Detroit, Michigan.

*35 Petitioner was 75 years old at the date of the trial. Petitioner was in the building and real estate business during the 1920s in Detroit and in Farmington, Michigan. During the 1930s he worked for the Ford Motor Company for a few years and then went into the home insulation business until World War II. After the war, petitioner went to Livonia, Michigan, and worked for some years as a broker with one Harry S. Wolfe, who was a real estate broker, and then left to get a real estate broker's license and establish himself as a real estate broker. Petitioner was involved with various real estate properties during this later period as an officer of various companies. Petitioner's real estate broker's license expired about 1956.

Under date of May 28, 1953, an option agreement was executed by Howard M. Warner and his wife, Clarissa, Susan Edessa Slocum, Helen Warner Gaukler, Frederick M. Warner and his wife, Phyllis, and Dorothy W. Bowie (referred to collectively in the agreement as "Sellers") and petitioner, who was referred to as the "Purchaser" which gave petitioner the option to purchase about 58 acres of real estate in Farmington known as the Treadway Farm. Paragraph 2 of the option*36 agreement stated that "[it] is the intent and purpose of [petitioner] to subdivide, improve and sell the premises above described, parcel by parcel" and to that purpose petitioner "has caused to be prepared a preliminary plan of subdivision of said premises, a copy of which preliminary plan is hereto attached, * * * identified by the signature thereon of the parties hereto, and incorporated herein by reference." Paragraph 3 divided the property into five units, giving a purchase price (ranging from $14,000 to $32,200) for each unit purchased under the terms of the option. The aggregate purchase price (exclusive of interest and taxes) under the option for all the units was $110,200, computed on the basis of sale of an estimated 58 acres at $1,900 per acre. Paragraph 4 stated that "[this] option shall expire at twelve o'clock noon (Eastern Standard Time) on the 30th day from and after the date of this option unless, prior thereto, the [petitioner] shall have elected to exercise hereunder as to Unit One." Paragraph 4 further provided that, in the event that petitioner should exercise his option to purchase Unit One within 30 days, then the option would be extended for stated periods*37 for the remaining four units.

Paragraph 5 of the option agreement provided as follows:

EXERCISE OF OPTION.

This option shall be exercised only by written notice of election to exercise signed by the purchaser and delivered to Howard M. Warner, one of first parties, or, in the event of his death, to such other of first parties as they shall specify in writing. Such notice of election may be delivered personally or may be delivered by depositing the same in the United States mail, registered, with postage fully prepaid, in an envelope addressed to Howard M. Warner at Farmington, Michigan. Such notice of election shall be delivered or mailed within the periods above limited. Such notice shall plainly specify (1) the unit as to which such notice applies; (2) the method of purchase desired by purchaser, whether in accordance with Paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of Section VI of this agreement; and (3) the exact metes and bounds description of the unit included in said notice. A certified or cashier's check, payable to the order of Howard M. Warner, in amount of $100.00 for each unit specified in such notice shall accompany said notice.

Paragraph 6 of the option agreement provided that*38 the various units were to be purchased by petitioner on the following terms:

* * *

(a) Payment of the purchase price in cash or by certified or cashier's check upon delivery of the usual warranty deed conveying unencumbered marketable title to said unit.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Herman J. Miller v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
295 F.2d 538 (Eighth Circuit, 1961)
Goldstein v. Allen
306 F.2d 711 (Tenth Circuit, 1962)
Mathieu v. Wubbe
47 N.W.2d 670 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1951)
Gooding Amusement Co. v. Commissioner
23 T.C. 408 (U.S. Tax Court, 1954)
Burr Oaks Corp. v. Commissioner
43 T.C. No. 51 (U.S. Tax Court, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1966 T.C. Memo. 251, 25 T.C.M. 1284, 1966 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 33, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fleming-v-commissioner-tax-1966.